87

That’s right. “We” are not all treated the same and instead of this bothering you, this is your response. That’s very small of you. Before it’s entirely too late…grow up.

2 Likes
88

But our president is a man of such high principle that he refused to allow witness testimony that would exonerate him, even under pain of impeachment. All for the sake of future presidents!

wipes away tear

1 Like
89

Vindication? Do you not remember when you used to call Bill Clinton “IFP Clinton?” Lol. You dudes.

90

The Judiciary has nothing to do with “impeachment” but can order Federal Marshals to drag a subpoenaed witness before Congress.
Are you a medical professional or something? Your diagnosis and life expectancy prediction for the Prez is remarkable!
So just for starters, any idea how healthy or when Jerry Nadler is going to croak?
How about that Adam “Shifty” Shiff? Those bug eyes look like he may have a thyroid issue :eyes: . Do you concur?

2 Likes
91

:joy:

:rofl:

So you’re telling me to grow up, but whining about some evil conspiracy that prevents the government from prosecuting people for committing supposed crimes?

:joy:

:rofl:

92

Lol.

After your party lets trump get away with this, every president will be allowed to use the power of his office for personal gain.

Way to go.

You have proven yourself the deepest of partisans, and display your disregard for the rule of law and our constitution daily.

93

Lol.

Hope that helps you sleep better. Me? The smell of the horse ■■■■ would keep me up at night.

94

The “sworn testimony” is superfluous to the facts that matter. The two people in the actual conversation deny bribery or quid pro quo. The actual transcript of the conversation shows no such bribery or QPQ. All other testimony to the contrary are 3rd-party interpretations and false dot-connecting.

95

The name of Andrew Johnson lives in infamy to this day. It is right up there with Benedict Arnold.
How many people even know why Andrew Johnson was impeached, really?

96

But didn’t we hear about it from someone who knew it was true because…2+2. I mean, we heard actual testimony to that.

97

The two people you refer to have not testified under oath and Trump’s claim of “no quid pro quo” to Sondland is laughable because Trump made it after he had been caught.

There is no "actual transcript’ but you know that… you’re just repeating the taking points you prefer.

98

All but about twelve percent of the amount in question was indeed appropriated within the budgetary year. So…you want to remove a President because Congress had to go to all the trouble of passing a resoilution for the remaining 12 percent? I’m sure House Dems would agree. We’ll see if that sells in the Senate.

99

It will be even more acutely felt by independents who will understand why no witnesses are called.

100

The two people in question are the mobster wannabe(Trump) and the shop keep paying for protection(Zhelinsky).

101

It is laughable to even attempt to sustain an argument that is predicated on Ukraine not being corrupt in 2017 and 2018 but was corrupt in 2019 but only up to the time that Trump released the funds.

102

People who are innocent usually lash out like this. Totally normal and cool.

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1220719087392903172?s=21

103

I won’t take this on face value until someone actually comes forward and says that this happened.

104

My guess is indictments will served!

Attempted coups have consequences

105

It may be different in the USA to Australia. In Australia if someone threatened any jury member like that they would be facing a significant gaol term.

106

Fair. For everyone’s sake I hope it isn’t true.